![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sex?
A while ago I wrote a bit about erotic writing being perceived as less worthy and even shameful, and of resolving to defy that stigma by being not secretive concerning the writing of it. More recently and prompted by conversation I have been wondering if I ought do the same with sex generally.
To be more open? It seems a fair goal to me for a topic that is sold to us as something to regard shamefully and reluctantly. However it is also true (and perhaps because of the ways we are taught to regard it) that sex is thus a subject many would not be comfortable seeing discussed as broadly and casually as other topics... I suspect I would be discomfited by that. Depending also what precisely was being talked about, I would anyway not want to share without discrimination. I think that is not a sharp conflict with a philosophy of openness.
Practically speaking. I had been using a filter for discussing sexual matters, which people had to request access to. I might swap that policy and include people on the basis of whether I am comfortable speaking in front of them - which, mind, would mainly be based on whether I had seen them express an interest in such matters, and those posts would still be behind cuts, and anyone who said they didn't want to see them would be disincluded.
Hm. Does that sound still open? Writing that out I felt it portrayed talk of sex and sexuality as something people need to be shielded from by steps I wouldn't take for just about any other topic. Explicit, gory violence? Maybe, would have to be relatively extreme. And yet there are certainly situations in which writings about sex could cause problems, so if for no other reason than that it makes sense to mark content advisories and give the option to defer access so far as I am able. I cannot after all control the circumstances in which others might read what I write (beyond a line), and it seems a likely enough circumstance that people might benefit from at least a content cut to make them well worth using.
Placing sexual content behind a (labelled) cut, okay. That makes sense. And a filter? Looking at the 'friends list' for my account right now it seems I have purged probably everyone I would be uncomfortable speaking in front of, so for my own comfort I do not currently need to use a specialised filter. And other people probably don't need more than a cut for their own utility and comfort. However, I cannot guarantee this will always be the case. With LiveJournal, everyone I 'friend' for reading also has access to my friends-locked, unfiltered posts and I might at some point subscribe to reading someone who I would not feel comfortable having access to that aspect of my life. Nor can I guarantee there will not be shifts in my comfort levels concerning the people currently flisted. So it makes sense for me to use finer controls than all-access / no-access.
I think attempting a participatory role in decreasing social shame and stigma concerning sexual matters is something worth doing. I am not comfortable talking about all things with all people, and although I think some degree of that is due to socialisation which I have just declared deserves opposition my existing feelings and comfort levels remain. I also believe I have the right to determine when I will push the limits of what I am comfortable with and when I will not, so... we shall see if anything more visible than the attitude with which I approach posting changes. It is not as if this is a subject I write about especially often.
A while ago I wrote a bit about erotic writing being perceived as less worthy and even shameful, and of resolving to defy that stigma by being not secretive concerning the writing of it. More recently and prompted by conversation I have been wondering if I ought do the same with sex generally.
To be more open? It seems a fair goal to me for a topic that is sold to us as something to regard shamefully and reluctantly. However it is also true (and perhaps because of the ways we are taught to regard it) that sex is thus a subject many would not be comfortable seeing discussed as broadly and casually as other topics... I suspect I would be discomfited by that. Depending also what precisely was being talked about, I would anyway not want to share without discrimination. I think that is not a sharp conflict with a philosophy of openness.
Practically speaking. I had been using a filter for discussing sexual matters, which people had to request access to. I might swap that policy and include people on the basis of whether I am comfortable speaking in front of them - which, mind, would mainly be based on whether I had seen them express an interest in such matters, and those posts would still be behind cuts, and anyone who said they didn't want to see them would be disincluded.
Hm. Does that sound still open? Writing that out I felt it portrayed talk of sex and sexuality as something people need to be shielded from by steps I wouldn't take for just about any other topic. Explicit, gory violence? Maybe, would have to be relatively extreme. And yet there are certainly situations in which writings about sex could cause problems, so if for no other reason than that it makes sense to mark content advisories and give the option to defer access so far as I am able. I cannot after all control the circumstances in which others might read what I write (beyond a line), and it seems a likely enough circumstance that people might benefit from at least a content cut to make them well worth using.
Placing sexual content behind a (labelled) cut, okay. That makes sense. And a filter? Looking at the 'friends list' for my account right now it seems I have purged probably everyone I would be uncomfortable speaking in front of, so for my own comfort I do not currently need to use a specialised filter. And other people probably don't need more than a cut for their own utility and comfort. However, I cannot guarantee this will always be the case. With LiveJournal, everyone I 'friend' for reading also has access to my friends-locked, unfiltered posts and I might at some point subscribe to reading someone who I would not feel comfortable having access to that aspect of my life. Nor can I guarantee there will not be shifts in my comfort levels concerning the people currently flisted. So it makes sense for me to use finer controls than all-access / no-access.
I think attempting a participatory role in decreasing social shame and stigma concerning sexual matters is something worth doing. I am not comfortable talking about all things with all people, and although I think some degree of that is due to socialisation which I have just declared deserves opposition my existing feelings and comfort levels remain. I also believe I have the right to determine when I will push the limits of what I am comfortable with and when I will not, so... we shall see if anything more visible than the attitude with which I approach posting changes. It is not as if this is a subject I write about especially often.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-18 15:14 (UTC)From:I really wish LJ would switch to Dreamwidth's system of separated access/subscriptions rather than conflating the two as "friends".
Am not sure if you intended for me to see this post or not. If not, I apologize for my comment.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-09 10:24 (UTC)From:I did not ban you from commenting or similar actions, and writing publicly I am thus aware you have access to read and respond, so in that sense you were intended to see this post.